On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights, determined that the Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota State High School League are both in violation of Title IX. The investigation highlighted Minnesota policies which base participation on sports team, and access to facilities, on “gender identity” rather than sex. “The Trump Administration will not allow Minnesota or any other state to sacrifice the safety, fair treatment, and dignity of its female students to appease the false idols of radical gender ideology. Once an education program or entity takes federal funds, Title IX compliance becomes mandatory. And the federal government will hold Minnesota accountable until it recognizes that fact” said Education Department Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. A proposed resolution agreement gives the MDE and MSHSL ten days to resolve their Title IX violations before enforcement actions commence.
The U.S. Department of Education has warned the Maryland State Department of Education that it could lose federal funding over “gender identity” policies that violate Title IX by requiring schools to allow students to access facilities and sports teams that align with their “gender identity” rather than their sex. Leaders in the Maryland DOE, however, argue that the state’s policies are consistent with judicial precedent set in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board. “The bottom line is that Secretary McMahon and President Trump believe that children do not belong to the government. Children belong to parents. And this department will vigorously uphold parental rights laws” said Julie Hartman, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education.
In a letter to the Oregon Department of Human Services, the Administration for Children and Families has announced an investigation into an Oregon foster policy which requires prospective parents to “affirm” a child’s “gender identity.” The letter alludes to the case of Jessica Bates, who launched a federal suit against Oregon in 2023 after the state denied her foster application because of her refusal to comply with the state’s “gender identity” requirement. Bates is arguing that the policy violates her freedom of religion and speech. "If true, these developments are deeply troubling, clearly contrary to the purpose of child welfare programs, and in direct violation of First Amendment protections. As you know, I have the responsibility of monitoring how federal funds are used and ensuring that federal law is upheld," wrote Andrew Gradison, acting assistant secretary for ACF.
A group of former patients who received “gender-affirming care” at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Children’s Hospital have filed a motion to block a subpoena issued by the Department of Justice as part of its investigation into healthcare fraud. The motion argues that the subpoena is overly broad and seeks access to private information beyond the scope of the DOJ’s investigation. In June, UPMC and the Children’s Hospital ceased providing “affirming care” services to patients under 19, prompting a recent complaint filed to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission arguing that UPMC’s decision discriminates on the basis of sex and disability status.
In the journal Voices of Bioethics, Christian O’Connell provides a philosophical analysis of the contested phrase “gender-affirming medical care,” arguing that the phrase carries “more than descriptive weight. The term embeds assumptions about truth, medicine, and beneficence that shape the debate from the start.” O’Connell provides an analysis of the phrases’ component parts (affirming, medical, and care) to argue that the phrase distorts and misrepresents more than it clarifies. O’Connell ultimately concludes that in practice pediatric medical transition is not “medical” in the sense of restoring health or alleviating suffering, fails to meet the bioethical standards associated with “care,” and fails to “affirm” a state of affairs that aligns with reality.
Last Wednesday, Missouri’s Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of the state’s 2023 law which prohibits minors from accessing medical transition procedures for the treatment of gender dysphoria. The plaintiffs are hoping to overturn a ruling by a Cole County Circuit judge which upheld the state’s law last November. The Solicitor General representing the state, however, argued that the circuit court got the ruling right, and quoted the recent Supreme Court ruling in Skrmetti which upheld Tennessee's law prohibiting dysphoric minors from accessing sex-rejecting procedures. A Lawyer for the plaintiffs, Nora Huppert, argued that Missouri’s law is distinct from Tennessee's and “does not classify based on medical use, but targets a gender transition, which is a defining feature of transgender people…shows that it is motivated by discriminatory purpose…” It is unclear when the Supreme Court will issue a ruling.
Ben Ryan reports that prominent “gender-affirming” physician, Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, has joined the Gender Confirmation Center in Pasadena, California after the shuttering of the pediatric gender clinic at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. Notably, Olson-Kennedy came under fire last year for suggesting to the New York Times that her team withheld findings from a federally-funded study of puberty blockers because of worries about how the research would be weaponized by those opposing “affirming care.” In late September, Olson-Kennedy was named president of the U.S. branch of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
In Gender Clinic News, Bernard Lane reports on the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine’s recent conference in Berlin, which brought together researchers, physicians, gender clinic directors, therapists and philosophers from around the world. To protect the anonymity of attendees, Lane’s reporting reflects the Chatham House rule, meaning he can detail what was said, but not who said it. Lane organizes his piece by topic area and provides a list of quotes and paraphrases under each subheading to flesh out what was discussed at the conference. The “gender-affirming” paradigm’s reliance on informed consent and its growing emphasis on patient autonomy—despite limited evidence of benefits—cut across several subtopics.
Joseph Figliolia
Policy Analyst
News
